It has to be about the only thing in terms of measurements or numbers in which the American way of doing it makes more sense. Where in America the beginning of the word ("bi-llion", "tri-llion", "quadri-llion",...) indicates the amount of times the number is multiplied by 1000 starting from 1 million, the "long scale" is different because it has two words at every level: a thousand million is a milliard, and only a million million is a billion. However, the result is that in long scale, the bi-, tri-,... part indicates how many times the number is multiplied by 1 million, also starting from 1 million, which isn't so illogical either.
Bottom line is just that it's annoying the two systems exist and you have to watch out in every new language you learn which of the two it uses. It's unfortunately not as simple as "English uses short scale, every other language long scale".
Bottom line is just that it's annoying the two systems exist and you have to watch out in every new language you learn which of the two it uses. It's unfortunately not as simple as "English uses short scale, every other language long scale".
British grammar
14/06/2010 07:15:43 AM
- 561 Views
Entities (like nations and companies) are considered to be in the plural in British
14/06/2010 07:38:05 AM
- 351 Views
One thing I've been wondering ... for, oh, the last five or six hours...
14/06/2010 08:32:56 AM
- 628 Views
Kind of but not really any more. But it's still different in continental Europe.
14/06/2010 08:36:40 AM
- 483 Views
Hmm... Long scale seems confusing
14/06/2010 08:49:06 AM
- 453 Views
It kind of depends on how you look at it.
14/06/2010 11:09:00 AM
- 357 Views
Originally a billion was a million million, but we've given up on that one now. *NM*
14/06/2010 12:32:31 PM
- 166 Views
it might be an accent thing, but i think "was" sounds horrible in that context
14/06/2010 08:38:33 AM
- 424 Views
Singular nouns denoting groups can take plural verb agreement in British English.
14/06/2010 12:31:25 PM
- 380 Views